Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forum
Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One (video)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)well worth the time..
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Simunitions are great, but the scenario needs to be honest. The 'shooter' knows exactly where the student is sitting each time.
That MIGHT be a valid test if the question was open carry, and the gun was visible to the shooter at the door.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)The PHALE(tm) and the Dream World(tm) are entirely yours.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)... well, the video speaks for itself...
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)and then some
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)1. The vast majority of carriers have rather more training and/or practice than these students.
1.a. The students did not actually receive any proper training on how to carry, draw or use their weapon.
2. No CCer wears a clinging, stretchy shirt over an externally holstered sidearm.
2.a. Or loose-fitting gloves.
2.b. Or a vision-reducing mask.
3. The attacking shooter knew exactly where the armed people were.
3.a. The students didn't know where the shooter was coming from.
In short, this was a contrived scenario, scripted to produce exactly the presentation that the producers wanted. Makes "reality TV" shows utterly believable by comparison.
Firecracker gas tanks. 
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"The vast majority of carriers have rather more training and/or practice than these students." I say that's bullcrap. Where did you get that. I know carriers that have no training. None. They are right-wing nut jobs that cant wait for the chance to prove their manhood by shooting a bad guy.
I have seen studies that showed that in a similar case to that shown, the students ended up shooting each other. Hard to tell who the bad guy is sometimes.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)is carrying a firearm, and needs to be shot first (After the instructor for theatrical effect)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
thucythucy
(8,069 posts)to the woman sitting next to him, in an obvious attempt to impress her. Big man on campus, and all that.
I used to work in an office with an older guy who would pull the same stunt. He had a permit, would sometimes carry, and despite the "concealed" part he made sure to share that info with all "the girls" in the office. He seemed to get off on this, mostly we thought he was a creep.
Had I ever had the inclination to go back to that office with very evil intent, I would have known EXACTLY who to go after first.
I wouldn't need to be clairvoyant at all. And considering how many mass shootings and shootings in general occur involving disgruntled former workers, students, whatever--people who KNOW at least some of the people they end up harming--this scenario doesn't seem all that far fetched to me.
Since you asked.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Some will deliberately 'out' themselves. In a non-open-carry state, that's legally hazardous.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)AlexSatan
(535 posts)Which is why most people who carry do not publicize it.
I think it is good that prospective criminals have to worry that someone might be carrying but not know who.
And most people realize that if you are suddenly attacked, a CCW is not going to help you. I (will) carry for the cases where I know there is danger in an escalating situation (very unlikely) or if someone else is attacked (also unlikely). My goal is to never have to unholster the weapon. Just as my goal is to never use my car, house, or life insurance.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Evidence at these sites:
www. keepandbeararms.com
http://gunssavelives.net/
http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?id=21&cpage=2
malthaussen
(17,204 posts)I am in awe of your knowledge. Where I live, to obtain a license to carry a firearm requires that certain minimal standards of familiarity and safety be met. Perhaps you meant "owners" rather than "carriers," which is not so big a stretch since anyone who has a firearm can carry it if he feels like taking the risk.
In any event, the video is specious; gods protect us from our friends.
-- Mal
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and using it in a stressful situation. Gods protect our children from nut-jobs with guns.
JAbuchan08
(3,046 posts)Self delete
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Every lawful carrier I know has much more training than that. And every state-required class I've been to covers all those topics, and says: Get. More. Training.
And training doesn't have to be in a formal class-room setting. It includes talking with knowledgeable people, reading, practicing on your own and, perhaps most important, mental preparation.
Please cite to the studies you reference.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Some details are fuzzy but I am sure that the attacker didnt get shot by the carriers. I believe a bystander did. Fuzzy memory.
I do know guys that might have some training in the past but doubt that it stuck. They are right-wing hotheads IMO looking for an opportunity to prove something.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)that prove your surmise.
Edit: And by "some incidents", I mean a statistically meaningful number. 5 stupid people, or even 100, out of 8+ million, is not a significant issue in relation to restricting a Constitutional Right.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Of course, you pulled it out of your ass.
1. The vast majority of carriers have rather more training and/or practice than these students.
No, they don't. As it states early in the clip: "Our basic course is already more hands-on training than almost half the states in the country require to carry a concealed weapon." Gunners are not super-human Rambo-esque killing machines (even though they pretend to be). They're average people with an average range of skills. That's who they selected for the students.
1.a. The students did not actually receive any proper training on how to carry, draw or use their weapon.
That was the whole point of the exercise: This is what would happen if average people with an average range of skills carry a gun into a situation where they'd be expected to use it. Exactly the scenario the RW touts as the reason average people need to carry weapons.
2. No CCer wears a clinging, stretchy shirt over an externally holstered sidearm.
Again: Average people. They can wear anything they want at anytime. And as far as I know there are no regulations defining what people with a concealed weapon can wear.
2.a. Or loose-fitting gloves.
Did you even notice that the shooter in the scenario depicted was wearing gloves, too?
2.b. Or a vision-reducing mask.
And a mask? Didn't slow him down.
3. The attacking shooter knew exactly where the armed people were.
The attacking shooter knows who is presenting a threat to him. In every case the shooter attacks the person standing in front - not the student - and if the student doesn't react, he picks another target. The student is only targeted if they do react. The experiment is to test the reactions of the subjects - the students. Not the shooter.
3.a. The students didn't know where the shooter was coming from.
Again - why should the subjects of the experiment know the conditions of the experiment - like where the shooter was coming from? This is testing their reactions, not the shooter's.
Yours is the typical conservative reaction to information which contradicts your preconceived dogma handed down to you by the NRA: #1 - Ignore it; #2 - try to run it down; 3# - Try to rationalize it away. And fail at every step.
Response to baldguy (Reply #14)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The biggest problem I have with this staged scenario is that the CCW permit holder is always seated in the same place, front and center, and the shooter seems to always know who the CCW permit holder is.
Not very realistic.
But let's be real here: I don't care what kind of weapon you are carrying - if a criminal has the element of surprise you are at a huge, huge disadvantage.
In a classroom, where everyone is going to be distracted by the work at hand and the speaker, a dedicated attacker that bursts into the room with a gun ready to shoot is going to have a good chance of killing all they wish, even if there are people who can fight back.
But what about the next classroom over? What about the janitor out in the hall? What about everyone else all over that school who will otherwise have no choice but to barricade the door and hope the shooter isn't able to shoot through the door or walls to get them while they hide?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The scenario wasnt the best. The shooter shouldnt have shot the person carrying. He should have stood still in plain sight and shot each and every other person to see how long it would take the carrier to get him if ever.
just us
(105 posts)The person who carries for protection of their livelihood such as valuables carrier,etc. starts from a mental state of defense. The gun "nut" comes from the mental state of offense and are ticking time bombs. their fantasies drive their egos, movies,video games,etc. they are looking for a chance to pull their weapon, just like the "nut" in Jacksonville who killed teenagers for loud music.
drynberg
(1,648 posts)Carrying a weapon ain't no "magic bullet" to stop violence, in fact there's a good chance of increasing the violence. This is the truth, it does not matter what spin the pro-gun folks want to put on the facts. Have you noticed that we ain't doing too well lately, like for the past several decades with this cowboy mentality? The rest of the developed world must view us as pathetic victims of pro-gun/ammo firms and their agents, the NRA and Koch Bros., et al...Time for a big change.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)I am pretty sure the odds of random concealed weapons carriers causing unintended damage/killing innocent people/abetting suicide is significantly greater than the odds of them stopping an attack.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
bpollen
(110 posts)it does show a correlation with gun ownership and homicide rates. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
Harvard also shows increases in the likelihood of suicide rates for gun owners. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html
I don't think it requires studies or statistics to say that the presence of a gun in the house increases the likelihood of accidental shootings.
I can't tell ya how safe it makes me feel that "honey-boo-boo" fans have weapons.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)-- of course they don't want random people going around with concealed weapons (and for good reason)-- I still think it makes some valid points.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)It's the Chiefs and other political-appointee personnel who make public utterances to the contrary.
spin
(17,493 posts)Over 800,000 resident Floridians have concealed weapons permits so cops do occasionally encounter them.
The cops here do not like those who carry illegally.